Only if she used a camera on self timer. Most likely, the person who made the fake ID owns the copyright on the photo. So she's still facing a penalty of perjury for the false DMCA notice.
You don't own the copyright of photographs of yourself, unless you were the photographer. The photographer by default owns the copyright.
There are serious consequences if she knowingly accepts fake ID - I think she says what they are in the blog. That's why she can't just turn a blind eye to fake ID.
Having said that, the US is being moronically puritanical making the drinking age 21. You can die for your country at 18, but you can't have a beer. If you're old enough to die for your country, you're also old enough to have a beer.
If you leaf through the FCC's list of enforcements for failing to renew licenses, some of it reads like the NYSE 100 Telecoms Hall of Fame - with companies like Sprint et al. featuring with reasonable freqency (and others, such as DirecTV). The interesting thing is if an individual or a small firm forgets to renew their license, they get slapped with the same fine as a multibillion dollar multinational telecoms company that should know better. A $10,000 fine for an individual or small firm can be devastating, but for a big multinational, it's probably cheaper to only bother to renew when the enforcement notice comes than employ someone to keep track of the paperwork.
A girl doesn't just "get pregnant" out of thin air. The man is absolutely responsible as well and should pay his share. Saudi Arabia is a repulsive regime (although not quite as repulsive as Iran). The USA has its faults, but if you think you'd rather live in Saudi because women in the USA actually have some rights and men are expected to pay up for things they were personally responsible for, then you've got some issues.
The dollar is already collapsing - it wasn't all that long ago when £1 bought only about $1.45. Now £1 will buy $2 - and there's every indication that the dollar is going to continue losing value.
This does at least insulate us from the rising cost of oil for the time being, since oil is traded in US$, and US$ is falling almost as fast as the price of oil is rising.
1. Get a big server, running Apache. 2. Generate a series of static pages containing every 128-bit number possible. 3. Make sure it gets indexed by Google et al. 4. Then wait for the legal threat from the AACS specifying which numbers are infringing their DMCA claim. They would have to specify every key. 5. Publish their legal threat letter containing all the keys, forcing them to revoke every key they have. 6. ????? 7. Profit!!!
Well, we were doing that kind of thing on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum in 1982. It was really the only way to practically do it on a small Z80 based computer.
Even if you could weasel out of the decades of prior art, what they are doing is OBVIOUS. Obvious things aren't supposed to be patentable. What you describe is merely a trivial extension of having some DEBUG macros in C code which are only run if you run the program with the '-d' parameter.
No, it's not the government who will wave a magic wand and make it all go away.
Who are the energy users? People. Millions and millions of people. Until we as individuals are prepared to cut our energy usage (and by and large we are not - most people can already save tremendous amounts of energy - probably more energy than taking their entire house off the grid - merely by bicycling into work instead of driving, yet have a huge array of excuses on why they can't) then there will be no reductions. Hell, most people will buy the most inefficient vehicle they can afford, rather than buying a perfectly nice fuel efficient vehicle.
If you live in the USA and don't like it that the USA didn't sign up to Kyoto, why not sign up to your own personal Kyoto treaty? Reduce your own personal energy usage year on year? There's nothing stopping you from doing so, certainly not politics. The ONLY thing that will reduce energy consumption is people wanting to reduce their own personal energy consumption. But to most, reducing energy consumption as a priority falls somewhere way behind having a nice haircut.
If you want a greener earth, also consider going for the low hanging energy saving fruit that's not two or three decades off - but available right now. Things like living closer to work (so you can walk in, or use public transport), choosing a more fuel efficient car instead of an SUV, perhaps riding your bike to work. I save more energy by cycling into work instead of driving my car than taking my entire house off the grid. I can do this now, and I am doing this now. Unfortunately, to most people, saving energy is a very low priority.
That's not to say we shouldn't support science and technology - it's also very important to do this too. However, the only thing that will make changes in the long run are shifts in attitudes. For example, recently, a poll was conducted by BBC Radio 4 - it showed that most young people in Britain were deeply concerned about excessive fossil fuel usage. However, when they were asked if they would change their lifestyle as a consequence, most of them said no. I expect this is because they just think it's somebody else's problem and the Government can wave a magic wand and it'll all go away - when in reality it's driven by their own demand for fuel. They are claiming deep concern about it but aren't actually prepared to make a lifestyle change to address it.
It doesn't matter if electric cars are cheaper than gas powered cars - people still won't drive them. Most people would rather commute 1-up in a gigantic SUV than buy an already existing fuel efficient car. A Volkswagen Jetta TDi is much less expensive than most SUVs, but you hardly see the TDi out on the roads in the US. Even in Britain, where fuel is three times as expensive as in the US, people buy the most fuel inefficient car they can possibly afford.
To most people, saving energy as a priority is somewhere far below having a nice haircut. They talk about how wonderful it'd be to have a solar panelled roof, yet they still haven't gone for the low hanging energy saving fruit that's available today, such as driving a car that does 40mpg instead of an SUV that does 12mpg, or better still - riding a bicycle to work (I can save more energy by commuting on my bike for 3 days a week instead of driving, than taking my entire house off the grid and putting it on renewables. But most people simply won't do that. They all have a myriad of excuses why they can't get on their bike, yet are happy to witter on about the energy savings they'll be getting with some solar panel technology that's at least 20 years away from hitting the market).
I think an even bigger benefit to solar is it can turn unused regions of my house, such as the roof, into a productive area for generating electricity. The trouble right now is that solar is far too expensive, and roof mounted panels will only actually pay off if you live in the desert. Get the price down to about a tenth of what it is now and with panels of decent longevity, then it becomes a practical proposition for even a roof in northern Europe.
At the moment it's far better to go for the low hanging energy savings fruit. Riding my bicycle into work three times a week instead of driving saves more fossil fuel energy than converting my house to entirely off-grid renewables, and the payback period is extremely short.
The telling thing is that they are no longer oil companies. BP hasn't called itself an oil company for years - it has called itself an ENERGY company for years. The energy currently is mainly oil, but BP and others are certainly not wedded to it - they'll deal with all energy production and storage.
No, the kettle analogy is holding a turbine (say, a child's windmill) above a kettle - not plumbing it into the kettle's spout itself. The steam is rising through the free air, then passing through the turbine blades. What I presume the NJ lot are proposing is many very small turbines that will absorb the energy that otherwise would have been used up by friction against the ground, objects, trees and bushes. Not turning the road into a tightly sealed pipe and using the air pushed along by the cars to drive the turbine!
The air moved around by the cars is being absorbed and dissipated anyway by the objects surrounding the road. All the turbines will do is instead of the airflow from the cars going to swish the surrounding grass, trees and bushes - it'll spin a turbine. The energy is already being absorbed by the surrounds of the road.
It's like putting a turbine over a kettle - you won't cause the kettle to use more energy to boil the water by allowing the steam coming from it to pass through a turbine - you'll just extract some of the energy that otherwise would have been used up by the environment of the kettle.
If it's designed correctly, it won't increase drag.
Sex is like bridge, after all. You don't need a partner if you have a good hand.
Re:Isn't everything digital a number?
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
No. That xvid is a 'number' that is intended to be a movie. It is literally a representation of a creative work.
The AACS number was only ever intended to be a number - nothing more, nothing less. The AACS key is not a creative work, and never will be a creative work any more than pi is a creative work.
I have to ask - are you a pilot? If you are, then I respectfully advise you to re-examine the implications of pilot in command. The pilot in command knew the runway conditions, but according to information released after the accident, had deviated from procedures. The NTSB probable cause will reflect this when the investigation completes. My forecast for the probable cause that the NTSB writes:
Pilot in command: Inappropriate decision to land on a runway with poor adhesion. Poor adhesion caused by slush was a factor.
The pilot in command knew ahead of time the length of the runway and the performance of the aircraft. He would ahead of time known it was sailing very close to the wind to land at Midway given the weather conditions and the performance of his aircraft, yet he elected to land at Midway instead of diverting.
Generally, devices like this are *simpler* than modems, requiring no flow control (and can be wired with just GND, TX and RX). Modems generally are the complex case because of the need for flow control.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if she used a camera on self timer. Most likely, the person who made the fake ID owns the copyright on the photo. So she's still facing a penalty of perjury for the false DMCA notice.
You don't own the copyright of photographs of yourself, unless you were the photographer. The photographer by default owns the copyright.
But the owner of the fake ID does NOT own the copyright. If anyone owns the copyright, it's the state who's ID was copied.
There are serious consequences if she knowingly accepts fake ID - I think she says what they are in the blog. That's why she can't just turn a blind eye to fake ID.
Having said that, the US is being moronically puritanical making the drinking age 21. You can die for your country at 18, but you can't have a beer. If you're old enough to die for your country, you're also old enough to have a beer.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you leaf through the FCC's list of enforcements for failing to renew licenses, some of it reads like the NYSE 100 Telecoms Hall of Fame - with companies like Sprint et al. featuring with reasonable freqency (and others, such as DirecTV). The interesting thing is if an individual or a small firm forgets to renew their license, they get slapped with the same fine as a multibillion dollar multinational telecoms company that should know better. A $10,000 fine for an individual or small firm can be devastating, but for a big multinational, it's probably cheaper to only bother to renew when the enforcement notice comes than employ someone to keep track of the paperwork.
Sinking the Belgrano was an absolutely legitimate act of war. Wars aren't nice things and people get killed.
The USA of course.
A girl doesn't just "get pregnant" out of thin air. The man is absolutely responsible as well and should pay his share. Saudi Arabia is a repulsive regime (although not quite as repulsive as Iran). The USA has its faults, but if you think you'd rather live in Saudi because women in the USA actually have some rights and men are expected to pay up for things they were personally responsible for, then you've got some issues.
You can be a manager who needs to be convinced of the merits of a project WITHOUT being an asshat. Bill Gates sounds like a serious asshat.
Not only that, it either didn't have a salt or the salt was invariant.
I have to ask - is "terroristic" cromulent, though?
The dollar is already collapsing - it wasn't all that long ago when £1 bought only about $1.45. Now £1 will buy $2 - and there's every indication that the dollar is going to continue losing value.
This does at least insulate us from the rising cost of oil for the time being, since oil is traded in US$, and US$ is falling almost as fast as the price of oil is rising.
OK, now here's a thought experiment.
1. Get a big server, running Apache.
2. Generate a series of static pages containing every 128-bit number possible.
3. Make sure it gets indexed by Google et al.
4. Then wait for the legal threat from the AACS specifying which numbers are infringing their DMCA claim. They would have to specify every key.
5. Publish their legal threat letter containing all the keys, forcing them to revoke every key they have.
6. ?????
7. Profit!!!
Well, we were doing that kind of thing on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum in 1982. It was really the only way to practically do it on a small Z80 based computer.
Even if you could weasel out of the decades of prior art, what they are doing is OBVIOUS. Obvious things aren't supposed to be patentable. What you describe is merely a trivial extension of having some DEBUG macros in C code which are only run if you run the program with the '-d' parameter.
Not if they were polite people. If they were, they'd stop all the shop talk so as to not leave you isolated in the conversation.
No, it's not the government who will wave a magic wand and make it all go away.
Who are the energy users? People. Millions and millions of people. Until we as individuals are prepared to cut our energy usage (and by and large we are not - most people can already save tremendous amounts of energy - probably more energy than taking their entire house off the grid - merely by bicycling into work instead of driving, yet have a huge array of excuses on why they can't) then there will be no reductions. Hell, most people will buy the most inefficient vehicle they can afford, rather than buying a perfectly nice fuel efficient vehicle.
If you live in the USA and don't like it that the USA didn't sign up to Kyoto, why not sign up to your own personal Kyoto treaty? Reduce your own personal energy usage year on year? There's nothing stopping you from doing so, certainly not politics. The ONLY thing that will reduce energy consumption is people wanting to reduce their own personal energy consumption. But to most, reducing energy consumption as a priority falls somewhere way behind having a nice haircut.
If you want a greener earth, also consider going for the low hanging energy saving fruit that's not two or three decades off - but available right now. Things like living closer to work (so you can walk in, or use public transport), choosing a more fuel efficient car instead of an SUV, perhaps riding your bike to work. I save more energy by cycling into work instead of driving my car than taking my entire house off the grid. I can do this now, and I am doing this now. Unfortunately, to most people, saving energy is a very low priority.
That's not to say we shouldn't support science and technology - it's also very important to do this too. However, the only thing that will make changes in the long run are shifts in attitudes. For example, recently, a poll was conducted by BBC Radio 4 - it showed that most young people in Britain were deeply concerned about excessive fossil fuel usage. However, when they were asked if they would change their lifestyle as a consequence, most of them said no. I expect this is because they just think it's somebody else's problem and the Government can wave a magic wand and it'll all go away - when in reality it's driven by their own demand for fuel. They are claiming deep concern about it but aren't actually prepared to make a lifestyle change to address it.
It doesn't matter if electric cars are cheaper than gas powered cars - people still won't drive them. Most people would rather commute 1-up in a gigantic SUV than buy an already existing fuel efficient car. A Volkswagen Jetta TDi is much less expensive than most SUVs, but you hardly see the TDi out on the roads in the US. Even in Britain, where fuel is three times as expensive as in the US, people buy the most fuel inefficient car they can possibly afford.
To most people, saving energy as a priority is somewhere far below having a nice haircut. They talk about how wonderful it'd be to have a solar panelled roof, yet they still haven't gone for the low hanging energy saving fruit that's available today, such as driving a car that does 40mpg instead of an SUV that does 12mpg, or better still - riding a bicycle to work (I can save more energy by commuting on my bike for 3 days a week instead of driving, than taking my entire house off the grid and putting it on renewables. But most people simply won't do that. They all have a myriad of excuses why they can't get on their bike, yet are happy to witter on about the energy savings they'll be getting with some solar panel technology that's at least 20 years away from hitting the market).
I think an even bigger benefit to solar is it can turn unused regions of my house, such as the roof, into a productive area for generating electricity. The trouble right now is that solar is far too expensive, and roof mounted panels will only actually pay off if you live in the desert. Get the price down to about a tenth of what it is now and with panels of decent longevity, then it becomes a practical proposition for even a roof in northern Europe.
At the moment it's far better to go for the low hanging energy savings fruit. Riding my bicycle into work three times a week instead of driving saves more fossil fuel energy than converting my house to entirely off-grid renewables, and the payback period is extremely short.
The telling thing is that they are no longer oil companies. BP hasn't called itself an oil company for years - it has called itself an ENERGY company for years. The energy currently is mainly oil, but BP and others are certainly not wedded to it - they'll deal with all energy production and storage.
No, the kettle analogy is holding a turbine (say, a child's windmill) above a kettle - not plumbing it into the kettle's spout itself. The steam is rising through the free air, then passing through the turbine blades. What I presume the NJ lot are proposing is many very small turbines that will absorb the energy that otherwise would have been used up by friction against the ground, objects, trees and bushes. Not turning the road into a tightly sealed pipe and using the air pushed along by the cars to drive the turbine!
Not quite.
The air moved around by the cars is being absorbed and dissipated anyway by the objects surrounding the road. All the turbines will do is instead of the airflow from the cars going to swish the surrounding grass, trees and bushes - it'll spin a turbine. The energy is already being absorbed by the surrounds of the road.
It's like putting a turbine over a kettle - you won't cause the kettle to use more energy to boil the water by allowing the steam coming from it to pass through a turbine - you'll just extract some of the energy that otherwise would have been used up by the environment of the kettle.
If it's designed correctly, it won't increase drag.
Just choose astronauts with good hands.
Sex is like bridge, after all. You don't need a partner if you have a good hand.
No. That xvid is a 'number' that is intended to be a movie. It is literally a representation of a creative work.
The AACS number was only ever intended to be a number - nothing more, nothing less. The AACS key is not a creative work, and never will be a creative work any more than pi is a creative work.
I have to ask - are you a pilot? If you are, then I respectfully advise you to re-examine the implications of pilot in command. The pilot in command knew the runway conditions, but according to information released after the accident, had deviated from procedures. The NTSB probable cause will reflect this when the investigation completes. My forecast for the probable cause that the NTSB writes:
Pilot in command: Inappropriate decision to land on a runway with poor adhesion.
Poor adhesion caused by slush was a factor.
The pilot in command knew ahead of time the length of the runway and the performance of the aircraft. He would ahead of time known it was sailing very close to the wind to land at Midway given the weather conditions and the performance of his aircraft, yet he elected to land at Midway instead of diverting.
A novel way of saying it.
add hl,bc
ld sp,hl
ld de,09d02h
ld (hl),h
ex (sp),hl
ld e,e
ret c
ld b,c
ld d,(hl)
push bc
ld h,e
ld d,(hl)
adc a,b
ret nz
Generally, devices like this are *simpler* than modems, requiring no flow control (and can be wired with just GND, TX and RX). Modems generally are the complex case because of the need for flow control.